Normally, in psychology, one piece of research never means much; but hypothetically it could. If someone could show in one clear research project (with eye-tracking technology and computer-assisted analysis software) a single clear set of perceptual "shifts" (or perceptual/attentional "shifts") clearly related to a patterning in subtle overt behaviors AND extremely reliably related to qualitative changes in learning (those, related to conceptual development, developments in understanding) THEN there would no longer be a need to find everything "embodied" -- as prescribed by "Embodiment" 'Theories', those all based on no good evidence and ONLY on pure unfounded analogy to happenings in Piaget's Sensori-Motor Period.
If someone would (could, shedding baseless long-standing 'assumptions', which are actually just beliefs or presumptions, in the role of assumptions) AND realize that basic perceiving (basic perceptual processing) may change regularly in BIG ways in "stages" with ontogeny (child development) THEN this research could be done, with the results I indicated in the Question.
And, more specifically, what this implies (and why conventional 'thinkers' with their 'assumptions' cannot even conceive of it) IS:
that you can believe (as I see likely and biologically consistent) that truly basic perception can change in such big ways, meaning that there can be NEW innate guidance TO (innate 'action' patterns IN) patterns of perceiving, and that they have NOW-directly-observable, measurable manifestations in OVERT, though subtle, behavior patterning (NOW discoverable/verifiable with new technology, as indicated above). THAT IS THE "TICKET" for the kind of advance over the "embodiment/enactment" 'theories' indicated in the Question. (The "embodiment" (aka "enactment") 'theories' have, and always will have only poor indirect evidence, AND have been completely negatively reviewed (in PUBLISHED WORK) by peer-psychologists to be essentially useless and destined to continue to be hopelessly ill-founded and useless.)
Here is a paper, clearly indicating how perceptual "shifts" could be true (and showing with certainty how classic psychology theories are "messed up", based on pseudo-assumptions)(the paper from 32 years ago does the best possible, then -- BUT NOT THE BEST POSSIBLE _NOW_): SEE:
Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...
[Try to picture YOURSELF in Olso; have sense, good thinking, courage, and hope]
P.S. To those who might care: There may be money in the research, if good discoveries are made: Can you imagine the impact on real artificial intelligence?
Also see:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_know_why_Piaget_himself_would_NOT_approve_of_Sensorimotor_Contingency_Theories?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Artificial Intelligence